russ wrote:

skinny honkie wrote:That output is in effect recording.

Come again? A sound travelling through the air is not recording no matter how you look at it. It's just sound.

We just posted at the same time.

I referred to the resultant numeric output of the calculations performed, which is recorded to RAM, not "output" in the aural sense - sorry for the confusion.

This is an apology.
I frankly feel really shit for contributing to dragging this thread down into a (admittedly relatively civilised, and informative) shit-fling.
I feel sorry for Steve, because he need justify nothing about what he does or the way he does it. Beating up forum trolls with War and Peace posts is a waste of his time and energy, as well as being really unsatisfying because you can't engage a troll in a physical headlock and spit "FUCK OFF" in their face, to which I'm sure all admins will admit to wishing for.
I've found these forums a fascinating source of information and experience, and making them a big drag to the person who paid for them by making him rehash the same old argument for the one millionth time jeopardises their existence.
So I apologise to everyone. Seeya in the not A vs D threads. Cheers for the forum Steve.

Wait a second. There's not even a debate here:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

Note the term 'Literally', which means take these words exactly as they are written. I responded to this statement with a list of completely factually correct items. However:

All of these are effects processes, which I also have access to. I have liked FIR eq since I first bought one ten years ago, the Quantec XL, and I use it often.

The Quantec IS A COMPUTER! In fact, I think it might have the same DSP chips as a ProTools hardware system. Regardless of that, it has a hardware structure much the same as a desktop PC as well (I/O, User Interface, CPU, fixed and volatile storage). So basically the terms of debate should be defined as:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines with the help of a bunch of computers

Now this debate becomes really, really stupid because one of the comparison groups encompasses the other entirely. It's no longer even a debate after the terms changed completely (awful debate form BTW). Maybe someone can go back, remove the term 'Literally' and delete all the posts responding to that.

I do still take exception to statements like this though:

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

That really implies, and not so subtly, that recordings made with computers are somehow by default inferior to ones made on tape. I call bullshit on that one. The computer does not automatically limit the people using it, and not everyone immediately starts quantizing every note by default. Computer users are not mindless zombies as those statements imply, people can use them creatively.

The processes you determine to be 'at the freakish margins' might actually have some artistic merit if considered on a larger scale than the purely technical,and not dismissed out of hand. Without computer quantization there would be no Kraftwerk, thus no 'Planet Rock', no Rap, no Detroit Techno, no 'Blue Monday', no UK Acid House, no rave culture... that's a pretty huge section of popular culture, which I wouldn't want to be without.

Long live the Computer and it's precious Quantizing!!

Chris

russ wrote:All due respect to Bob Weston, but I really wish people would stop using him as an example that digital recording is good. It's just getting old.

Really? Are people doing that more than just in this thread?

I've made a few hundred records over the past 15-years without using computers. I edit the analog tape all the time (2", 1", 1/2", 1/4"). I think these records sound great and most of the bands seemed pretty happy with the results too.

The things that you can't easily do with multitrack tape quickly (the minute "repairs", "fixing" the timing of drum hits, "fixing" the pitch, all the stuff you've been arguing about, etc) are it's strength when making a record on a budget: You won't waste hours and hours fixing things ("mistakes") that: a) make your band, the song, this particular recorded version of the song more memorable and b) nobody would ever notice unless you pointed it out to them as a mistake.

Just because you can "fix" all this stuff, doesn't mean that you should.

Listen to all of your classic Stones, Zeppelin, Who, etc etc. If those records were made with today's standard computer based methods they wouldn't rock half as much and you wouldn't still be listening to them. There are "mistakes" everywhere.

The supposed "perfection" that can be achived with the computers can simply suck the life and energy out of your band.

Don't be mistaken. I will ALWAYS choose analog tape recording over digital. It is simply better.

best,
Bob

P.S. Sorry about all the quotation marks. -b

Bob Weston wrote:Listen to all of your classic Stones, Zeppelin, Who, etc etc. If those records were made with today's standard computer based methods they wouldn't rock half as much and you wouldn't still be listening to them. There are "mistakes" everywhere.

i could not agree more. from my free jazz phase a few years ago i learned an appreciation for the imperfections in musical performance. listening to coltrane you can actually hear the sweat, you can hear his fingers tapping the keys and working his musical machine. you hear the performance, the human process of making music. seems like for years the aim has been perfection and now that perfection is easily attainable, i fucking hate it. it is sterile, lame, and captures no human emotion or toil.

i want to hear the musician playing the music. the subtle mistakes captured in the process are what shows me that the music is important and is a physical burden being unleashed from the performer. digital editing perfection leads to the removal of much of what i've learned to like about music. since the computer can play time signatures and note patterns which are impossible for the human brain and limbs and since the computer can play everything perfectly, the message sent is that perfect sounding music is unimportant. since a machine can make perfect music instantly and replicate it perfectly for any length of time, perfect playing of music is unremarkable.

i don't want to hear the notes, i want to hear the band playing the notes. i don't want to hear the vocals i want to hear the singer as he sings. i don't want to hear the rigid beat, i want to hear the drummer leading the music into and out of its natural tempo shifts. these imperfections are based in the human process of creating music and playing it. and that is what i love. please don't edit it out.

i'm also totally against a studio being used to make a band sound better than they do. this is the root of all that "fancy dan" computer power being bragged about. but alas, it is another topic entirely.

cgc wrote:Wait a second. There's not even a debate here:

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines

Note the term 'Literally', which means take these words exactly as they are written. I responded to this statement with a list of completely factually correct items.

My point was that, as a recording/editing device, a computer isn't better than a tape machine in any way that matters to me, and to highlight that, I suggested that there isn't any recording or editing function (I should have been more explicit about that) that a computer can do that I can't also do with tape machines. I still think I'm right about that.

All of these are effects processes, which I also have access to. I have liked FIR eq since I first bought one ten years ago, the Quantec XL, and I use it often.

The Quantec IS A COMPUTER! In fact, I think it might have the same DSP chips as a ProTools hardware system. Regardless of that, it has a hardware structure much the same as a desktop PC as well (I/O, User Interface, CPU, fixed and volatile storage).

Again, my point is that a tape machine is the better recording device, and that processes (some digital for sure) that can be done to the sound on a computer can also be done to an analog recording. This isn't a kosher/treyf distinction -- it's a distinction between a good basic recording strategy and one that purports to be "better." I reiterate that anything that can be done on a computer can be done in a conventional studio with analog tape machines.

I do still take exception to statements like this though:

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

That really implies, and not so subtly, that recordings made with computers are somehow by default inferior to ones made on tape. I call bullshit on that one. The computer does not automatically limit the people using it, and not everyone immediately starts quantizing every note by default. Computer users are not mindless zombies as those statements imply, people can use them creatively.

I don't see any mention of zombies. The difference between a tape machine and a computer will assert itself at some point in the session, that's all I meant, and I believe it to be true.

The processes you determine to be 'at the freakish margins' might actually have some artistic merit if considered on a larger scale than the purely technical,and not dismissed out of hand. Without computer quantization there would be no Kraftwerk, thus no 'Planet Rock', no Rap, no Detroit Techno, no 'Blue Monday', no UK Acid House, no rave culture... that's a pretty huge section of popular culture, which I wouldn't want to be without.

Well, you're absolutely wrong about Kraftwerk. Virtually all of their rhythms (up until the last couple of albums) were performed by them, either on drum kits (in the early days) or using synthesizer/noise triggers. They also used tape loops and analog sequencers as well, which had no quantizing. But this is immaterial. I'm awfully glad their records were recorded on tape, because I like them and I want them to survive.

And to suggest that records of any type cannot be made on tape machines is ridiculous. Some stuff (yes, at the freakish margins) is easier on computers, so that stuff gets exploited more in that paradigm, but it can be done using tape machines.

I prefer to stay out of the digital vs. analog discussion, because I'm a drummer and my only valid argument would be which machines survive being hit with sticks.



As far as the original questions to this thread, I think it's really a matter of very old principals in recording. Put it down to "tape" (disc, whatever) the right way in the first place.

By "the right way" I mean be prepared in your: playing, tuning, room setup, mic selection, mic placement, engineer selection, musician selection, diet, morals, hygiene, etc.

Fixing anything in Protools is just as essentially lame as trying to fix it on tape. The unfortunate thing about the prolific use of comp recording is the laziness it seems to foster. It much to easy to take all these wonderful digital tools and use them to mask what is essentially a bad recording.

Personally I love the pressure that analog puts on the performance. I play better if I know that we can't go chop-a-tastic in a window to fix my lameness. In this regard I think it saves more overall time in the process.

Do your homework kids, the record will speak for itself.


And I agree with Steve, they are very good at what they do there. Everything is done right going to tape, and it saves a crapload of $$.

The coffee there blows ass though.

Oooh, a wall of bees!

I think part of the problem here is that Steve presents an argument that is so convincing and difficult to refute, that everyone wants to try and refute it. From what I gather, this argument centers around 3 main points:

1) Computers don't offer any specific advantage over tape machines for the recording of music.
2) Computers are unreliable, both in the short term (losing data, crashing) and in the long term since hardware/software changes are happening so quickly and not always with backwards compatibility.
3) Digital audio has no long-term archival format/standards.

Maybe there are a couple more ancillary points I'm missing.

Anyhow, that argument makes a lot of sense to me and I pretty much agree. However, I strongly disagree with those who trash the *sound* of digital audio and think that the above argument supports them in making those claims. Usually, this is from some kid who uses a portastudio because someone told him the Beatles recorded on a 4 track . It is a ridiculous assertion, yet a pervasive one...especially on these here internets.

Not that there is anything wrong with using a 4 track. Frankly, I don't think using any recording method or media is 'wrong' if it works for you.

bonati wrote:Oooh, a wall of bees!

Muh?